Immigration politics

The U.S. Justice Department lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s attempt to legislate its own immigration policy is a necessary step in determining if that state’s law, which has yet to go into effect, can be legally enforced. The lawsuit is the appropriate thing to do.

Individual states cannot have laws and policies that usurp federal authority. The courts have long since settled that matter.

The question is, does the new Arizona law impose such an intrusion on federal authority?

If the court decides it is OK for the state to, among other things, arrest people who are not carrying documents proving they are in the country legally, then Arizona can go ahead with enforcement without becoming entangled in prolonged and costly case-by-case challenges.

If the court voids the Arizona law, the state’s taxpayers will be spared the cost and embarrassment of heading down a legal box canyon, and having to retreat.

Arizona can hardly be blamed for its go-it-alone attempt to gain some semblance of control over its problematic southern border, even though it played a role in creating the problem.

The states, including Arizona and neighboring New Mexico, have long winked at the porosity of the border because of the ready supply of inexpensive seasonal labor it could provide.

Over the years, enforcement standards changed and jobs employing immigrants took on a less seasonal nature. Immigrants who arrived without the formality of documents began to find year-round work, settle down, start families and embed themselves in the local economy — greatly complicating immigration enforcement.

It is a situation that has long cried out for federal attention.

Meanwhile, our experience with the rise of criminal behavior at the border, fueled by political corruption and heavily armed drug cartels within Mexico (an issue separate from immigration policy), and an increase in the violence associated with the smuggling of humans as the border was tightened, clearly shows the limits of border fences and policing when it comes to discouraging the influx of undocumented immigrants.

Any new law must take aim at the root cause of the problem.

It makes no sense to risk your life crossing the Sonoran desert unless there is a suitably substantial reward for doing so. Here is where the embattled Arizona law may help point the way for a workable federal plan. It would penalize employers who hire workers who cannot prove they are in the country legally. Since money is the driving force behind illegal immigration, cutting it off should reduce the incentive.

The timing of the federal lawsuit is, if not a stroke of political genius, then something akin to it. The suit will likely delay enforcement of the Arizona law. Meanwhile it provides the best form of political cover: We cannot expect politicians to legislate an issue that is being actively examined in a federal court — a process that could easily take until November.

Despite all the blusters of outrage from the political corners, it is likely every politician in the arena this year welcomes the effective removal of the explosive and emotionally charged question of immigration reform as a campaign issue.

We don’t expect much progress on the matter until the Arizona case is settled and the political map is redrawn. Then perhaps the nation can finally get down to the business of creating a sensible immigration policy.